I only wish we could have a REAL debate about the actual issues involved, as part of lawsuits seeking to overturn legislation designed to protect young people from a medical system that has run amok.
For example:
Is there any proof that so-called "gender-affirming care" (chemical and/or surgical alteration of otherwise healthy bodies to make them appear as the opposite sex) actually prevents suicide in minors who want these treatments? Of course, the answer is NO.
Is there any proof that anyone is biologically "trans" (ie. that anyone has a biological inclination to need medical interventions to appear as the opposite sex, and must be treated socially as if they are the opposite sex, in order to function well in society, be reasonably happy or content in life)? Of course, the answer is NO.
Is there any proof that young people receiving these medical treatments are happier, more functional, better adjusted successful adults than young people who want such treatments but don't receive them? Of course, the answer is NO.
If the ACLU and other amicus cannot prove the above 3 points, then they have failed to explain why young people must be entitled to these medical treatments.
Further, if the State can prove the two points below, they have provided a legitimate basis for these bans, and the Courts have no business over-turning the statutes:
Is there any proof that young people who receive these medical interventions suffer more health problems than young people who do not receive these medical interventions? Of course, the answer is YES.
Is there any proof that a number of young people who receive these medical interventions will later realize they did not need these interventions and regret the health issues and changes in appearance to their bodies that result from such interventions? Of course, the answer is YES.
The next lawsuit should have these 5 issues (and probably others I am not thinking of right now) framed for review.
Every time I hear NPR (yes, I do still listen to them in the car, though I stopped donating a while ago) tout their “unbiased” reporting, I want to challenge them to provide this kind of coverage and analysis of this and similar cases. But no, everything is all about how “anti-LGBTQ+” certain states or groups are. Sigh.
Thank you for these brilliant play-by-play tutorials in how to read these proceedings -- and how our litigators can be more effective going forward. I find myself reading your paragraphs twice because they’re so granular, and instructive. Please keep them coming!
Thank you for these straightforward explanations of the analysis in this lawsuit. Some of the most hopeful information I’ve seen so far I’m the bizarro land of gender woo word salad. Seeing the education of judges and prosecutors in cult coercive control cases come through lately is also giving me hope.
I only wish we could have a REAL debate about the actual issues involved, as part of lawsuits seeking to overturn legislation designed to protect young people from a medical system that has run amok.
For example:
Is there any proof that so-called "gender-affirming care" (chemical and/or surgical alteration of otherwise healthy bodies to make them appear as the opposite sex) actually prevents suicide in minors who want these treatments? Of course, the answer is NO.
Is there any proof that anyone is biologically "trans" (ie. that anyone has a biological inclination to need medical interventions to appear as the opposite sex, and must be treated socially as if they are the opposite sex, in order to function well in society, be reasonably happy or content in life)? Of course, the answer is NO.
Is there any proof that young people receiving these medical treatments are happier, more functional, better adjusted successful adults than young people who want such treatments but don't receive them? Of course, the answer is NO.
If the ACLU and other amicus cannot prove the above 3 points, then they have failed to explain why young people must be entitled to these medical treatments.
Further, if the State can prove the two points below, they have provided a legitimate basis for these bans, and the Courts have no business over-turning the statutes:
Is there any proof that young people who receive these medical interventions suffer more health problems than young people who do not receive these medical interventions? Of course, the answer is YES.
Is there any proof that a number of young people who receive these medical interventions will later realize they did not need these interventions and regret the health issues and changes in appearance to their bodies that result from such interventions? Of course, the answer is YES.
The next lawsuit should have these 5 issues (and probably others I am not thinking of right now) framed for review.
These analyses are fantastic, thank you! I hope everyone arguing these cases is looking at them.
Every time I hear NPR (yes, I do still listen to them in the car, though I stopped donating a while ago) tout their “unbiased” reporting, I want to challenge them to provide this kind of coverage and analysis of this and similar cases. But no, everything is all about how “anti-LGBTQ+” certain states or groups are. Sigh.
Thank you for these brilliant play-by-play tutorials in how to read these proceedings -- and how our litigators can be more effective going forward. I find myself reading your paragraphs twice because they’re so granular, and instructive. Please keep them coming!
Thank you, these have been great.
Thank you for these straightforward explanations of the analysis in this lawsuit. Some of the most hopeful information I’ve seen so far I’m the bizarro land of gender woo word salad. Seeing the education of judges and prosecutors in cult coercive control cases come through lately is also giving me hope.